Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 December 15

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 15

Luger pistol

How many rounds can a Luger pistol fire before having to be re-loaded? I need this info for an article. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The article you've linked to says 8 rounds in the 'feed system' section of the infobox. Dalliance (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a source which says a man was shot nine times in the back with a Luger. How would this have come about if only 8 rounds could be fired without reloading? Possibly, the gunman emptied the pistol into the victim, re-loaded, then fired the ninth round into him.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

8 rounds in the magazine and 1 in the chamber? This source says "it is not safe to carry an extra one 'up the spout' with a Luger" but not that it is not possible. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Could the Luger pistol have used instead a 32-round drum box magazine for the shooting in question?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A 32 round magazine for a semi-auto pistol seems a little excessive. I wonder why the firearm designer thought they needed that much ammo all at once? Googlemeister (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think such a magazine would have made Scorpio and Callahan's dyscalculia all that more believable if the script had read: I know what you’re thinking: “Did he fire 32 shots, or only 31?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I’ve kinda lost track myself. But being this is a 9mm Luger, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: “Do I feel lucky?” Well do ya, punk?--Aspro (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

When I took a pistol-handling course some years ago, one point emphasized was: at any pause in a firefight, swap magazines so that the most-full one is in your gun. Because, in all the excitement, you will lose count. Of course Callahan had a revolver. —Tamfang (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Once five or six rounds have gone in, Jeanne, I think the firer would probably (usually) have time to stop and reload without the victim escaping. Or perhaps there were two (or more) assailants? --Dweller (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There were likely at least five, maybe eight gunmen. I am referring to the Miami Showband killings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are the poor dirty? It's not because it's expensive...

I know for a fact that it's not because it's more expensive not to be filthy, since if you have someone with the EXACT same income, let's say a college student whose family isn't sending them any money for whatever reason, nor do they have any valuable possessions, this person will not be dirty like a homeless person who would attend the same institution with the same income. So, what is it? Is it because the "rich poor" kid had a family who instilled not to be filthy into them, whereas the homeless person just doesn't give a shit? Or, is it capability? Or, is it optimism, because the homeless person doesn't have the same prospects for the future as the "richer" poor person with the exact same income and (assume) possessions?

Also, the rich poor take much better care of their stuff, I noticed. If you give a poor poor person an iPhone and a rich poor person an iPhone, even if they have the exact same environment, the exact same income, the exact same possessions, and the exact same routines, the rich poor person's iPhone will look almost new a year later, whereas the poor poor person's will look as if they've been homeless with it for a year. Please explain this difference, thanks.

Note: right now I'm sitting in an absolutely filthy netcafe in a very poor part of Paris. I guarantee you if this same netcafe were in a rich suburb of an American city for whatever reason, it would be sparkling clean even if it had the EXACT same people coming into it, and the EXACT same income and access to labor. Why is this??? Thanks. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you thought about how difficult it would be for a homeless person to (a) get a bath or shower, (b) buy spare clothes, (c) store them when not needed, and (d) regularly launder them, if they have no money? What would your priority be if you were homeless with no income? Would it be to spend money on food or buying new shirts?

It is a false assumption that a given homeless person would have the same level of income as a given college student. A college student "whose family is sending them no money" obviously has an income in order to maintain themselves while studying. If they didn't have a sufficient income, they would either be dropping out to seek employment, moving back home, or indeed becoming homeless.

And if, by some strange conjunction of circumstances, a person was homeless but had enough income (for example in the form of welfare payments) to satisfy their needs of a higher priority, there is no reason why they would not be "clean". Judging by the clues in your message, you appear to be a reasonably well-travelled American. If your travels ever take you to Japan, you may well discover the "tribe" of (formerly) white collar homeless people who, despite sleeping around subway stations, nevertheless dress neatly in shirt and suit, and polish their leather shoes. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A college student can technically be receiving no money, and still be clean and fed, provided that someone is paying for room and board. It may be easy for the student to forget about that, but the money's coming from somewhere (and it's probably significantly more money than they'd have to spend to rent an apartment and buy groceries on their own).

Sometimes the social services do exist for the homeless to get showers and new clothes. There are groups in Boston that do this, because it can help people get jobs and get on their feet again. But I remember reading news from back where I lived in Florida about a social service organization that was fighting the zoning board in order to expand its operations with shower facilities. And even in Boston, which is pretty good, as far as these things go, there's still not enough to go around, so the organizations focus on the cases that they can help the most. Paul (Stansifer) 15:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the concept you are trying to express with 'rich poor' and 'poor poor' is social class. I also think you do not understand the costs involved in keeping things neat, clean and tidy, both in terms of time and resources. A cafe in a rich suburb will spend more on cleaning because they have a higher income (can afford it), and the (rich) customers in the area can afford higher standards, making it necessary to be cleaner if you want to stay in business. This cafe in a richer suburb will charge more for a cup of coffee than a cafe in a poorer area, and/or will be selling more high-markup pastries. 86.161.208.185 (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

See Maslow's hierarchy of needs for a decent explanation. Taking a bath is a higher order need than being fed. Psychologically, people's lower-order needs must be met before they are prepared to deal with higher order needs. --Jayron32 14:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

People with mental disorders, drug addictions etc... are over-represented in homeless groups, and their hygiene priorities might not be following the standard culturally accepted levels. Googlemeister (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You might be making also a sampling mistake here. You certainly meet enough clean poor people along the day, you just don't notice them, because they don't look like your stereotypical dirty poor. 80.58.205.105 (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The sampling bias goes in both directions. How do you know that unshaven dude in tattered clothes isn't an eccentric dot-com millionaire? I think your direction is a lot more common, though, since most wealthy people have to dress nicely in order to keep getting wealthier. Paul (Stansifer) 15:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I question the assumption at the root of this question. Certainly homeless people tend to be dirty, for the obvious reason that they lack access to baths or showers. However, poor people who are not homeless, in my experience, are no dirtier than anyone else. Moreover, I have certainly met quite affluent people who did not prioritize personal hygiene. Marco polo (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I also question the assumption. As best as I can tell, 86.161.208.185 is located in France. I'll just lay out my own "original research" on the subject: (1) In the USA, maybe with an exception for children, cleanliness is universal across classes. I know some guys who do manual labor, and even they are pretty clean. (2) I didn't notice anything different when I was in France, but I wasn't on the lookout. (3) Ironically, in the USA, one of our jokes about the French is that rich French people have foul body odor. --M@rēino 18:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hygiene is not only in the obvious. "Clean" is not clean enough for the space in which surgery takes place for instance. (Unfortunately the word "disinfection" is spelled incorrectly in this JPEG.) Bus stop (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand being in a perpetual state of disinfection would most likely not be very healthy. A lot of the microbes on the skin are there for a reason.

Also a combination Marco Polos and IP 86.161.208.185s answers seems to me to be the correct. The OP is comparing apples and oranges in their question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Conscientiousness is the key. Caring less about things in general, including hygiene. 2.97.210.25 (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

?? Doesn't that mean caring more? (Or is this some weird retro-function of the weird US phrase "I could care less", which actually means "I could not care less"?) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I should have preceded the above with "The degree of...". 92.28.247.44 (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Which doesn't make it more true in this case anyway. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"Which doesn't make it more true in this case anyway." What is the basis or evidence for making that remark please? You contradict a lot of solid empirical research without any explaination or stated reason. 92.28.247.44 (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

OP, would you like to post a photo of this filthy Parisian internet cafe so that we can have a look at it? The dirt may be a ploy by the owner to suggest that her/his prices are so low that they cannot afford to clean the place. 92.24.176.82 (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm poor, and yes, I don't always shower--not as bad as before. Partially it's clutter. Part of it is why bother? Part of it is that it's just a bad habit. Which is strange, because once I'm in the shower, I like it. It feels good to be clean. Also, Europeans don't have as much a reputation for cleanliness as Americans (I'm not European). This article (Hygiene) might help.206.130.174.43 (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Light bulb. The minimum wage in France is likely to be much higher than that in the USA, so it costs a lot more to employ someone to clean the place. 92.28.242.98 (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"A very poor part of Paris" Why do you think its poor? Its likely that the cost of real-estate there is a lot more than almost anywhere in the US would be, even though the houses and flats/apartments are smaller than those in the US as well. The minimum wage would be a lot higher in Paris than in the US, with much longer holidays/vacations, shorter working hours, and free (I think) health care. 92.15.1.13 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

gender socialisation.

what is the role of the family

masculinity and feminity are socially produced.assess the role of the family in these two identities.

masculinity and feminity are social and culturally produced roles.structuralists in general maintain that gender roles are taught while biologists argue that masculinity and feminity come naturally by to an individual.41.190.32.115 (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)kundai chaka Reformated. 86.161.208.185 (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sociology of the family is an obvious place to start. Searching for terms associated with your question can yield results! Warofdreams talk 16:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting documentary. Read about it here too. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend Engels for some interesting reading on this topic (links to fulltext in 'External links' section). --superioridad ^(discusión) 21:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

University by GRE or other standardized test

Is there a reliable list of universities ordered by their undergraduates' results on standardized tests? Quest09 (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

probably not on wikipedia but outside sources like us news collate such data for american universities (and i believe a select few foreign ones, namely canada)(Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC));

Well, the problem is that I find several similar lists, mainly of entry requirement/university. That makes it difficult to find this concrete list. Quest09 (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if these statistics are collected in the first place. You don't have to declare an affiliation with a particular institution when registering for the GRE, so it's not clear if such a list can even be reliably constructed. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I didnt read GRE, though you asked undergrad. but while im not familar with the GRE, the LSAT data is certainly collated. Schools are ranked in 3-4 tiers (been awhile now so i dont remember) with columns indicating a the LSAT range generally accepted (although of couse standardises scored are not the be all and end all of admissions). Did i atleast partly answer your question?Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be a different scenario. I want to know how the undergraduates of each university perform after completing their studies, not how they were admitted. For me it is clear that more prestigious universities will attract higher grades/scores.Quest09 (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, in that case i dont think they collate that data. Once theyre in, theyre in. With various factors such as grade inflation (and ive talked to lots of people about it, particularly yale graduate students) once yours in it is very hard to get kicked out because it would make the school look bad for a bad decision. You have to almost consciously to something veritably dumb to fail.Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What does grade inflation/being in/being kicked out have to do with that? I am asking for a table with GRE grades and university/college attended (before getting the GRE grade). Quest09 (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Im telling why they dont haev a reason to collate it.Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Universities don't have to collect and publish anything. GRE is an independent test, administered by ETS. They could be collecting and publishing such information. However, that could make some universities look bad.Quest09 (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

hence the relevance right. Also dont know why the uni. would share that info with the independent GRE administrators anyways.Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't you get the point? Universities don't have to share any information. The could ETS could be collecting such information (but apparently it doesn't). And please remove that banner from your user page that says that you can contribute with a professional level of English. Your English is far from that. Quest09 (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Several questions about how things worked in a medieval barony

In medieval europe, a baron would obviously rule his own barony, and farmers and peasants would work on his land in trade for his protection and such.

1) Would a baron let his subjects (can I use this word here? or did only kings have subjects?) keep much of what they produced, whether it be food, things of metal, leather, stone, wood etc. in addition to pay them wages? Or would he more likely take everything they produced for himself, gaining more for himself through trade and such, leaving his subjects to fend for themselves with the little wages they got?

2) A baron could not protect his own barony on his own, so he needed men-at-arms. Unless I'm mistaken men-at-arms were almost always professional soldiers but not necessarily of noble origins, so where did they live? Did they live in the walled mansion or near the mansion of the baron himself, or did they simply live anywhere across the barony, much like the other peasants?

3) Let's say this barony was very close to the nearest city, would many of the workers who worked on his land still live on his land or would they be more likely to live in the city?

4) 1000 acres. A patch of land of this size, how useful could it be for a medieval baron? It depends a lot of course on the structure and fertility etc. of the land, but lets say it's a fairly fertile land and thus good for agriculture. Then could 1000 acres be big enough to grow several types of grain, as well as vegetables and to raise livestock? Or would this land simply be TOO small? I figure that livestock also would need a lot of space for grazing, which means meadows and/or pasture. Perhaps space would not necessarily be an issue at all, and perhaps there would also be room for other things, such as mining or a quarry? or perhaps I have to increase the land-size to 2000 acres to make all this work? As i said, I understand that the structure of the land is very important, but I'm wondering if all of this would be possible or likely on 1000 acres in medieval europe, or perhaps 2000 if the former is to small. I know 1000 acres wasn't all that big, but could this lord make great profit and live well on this land?

Although I usually consider myself reasonably intelligent, I'm far from great with numbers and I have been finding it hard to grasp the whole acre and land-size thing when reading about it. But if I have finally gotten it right then 4000,000 (four million) square metres ROUGHLY equals 1000 acres. That means that a land of 2000 x 2000 metres or 2 km x 2 km is 1000 acres, ROUGHLY, not too far away anyway.

Krikkert7 (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The primary unit of the manorial system was the manor. The Lord of the Manor was the primary owner of a manor, but he was likely not a baron. The actual baron likely controlled a territory of hundreds of manors, either directly or via mesne lords granted administration of parts of the baron's realm via subinfeudation. The barons had little contact with, and little control over, the management of individual manors. The system that tied workers to the land was Serfdom. One of the rights of a serf was the right to work a portion of the land for their own sustenance. This may have meant (and I am making this number up, just to get an idea) that one acre in ten that a serf was expected to work was considered his, so he would get the produce of that one acre, and the other nine would be granted to the Lord of the Manor. The Lord of the Manor was not the tenant-in-chief, so he had to pay a large amount of grain up the heirarchy until it reached the baron; the baron himself would use the produce to feed his men-at-arms OR to sell and pay the King for his service (see bastard feudalism). The actual Lord of the Manor may have paid one or two guards to watch over his land, but this came out of his personal cut. Back to serfs: Serfs lived on the land itself; even if they lived close to a city (there weren't more than like 2-3 cities in England at the time. After London and York, most were miniscule) there wasn't much for them to do, nearly all of the work in a city was carefully controlled by guilds, such that people couldn't just show up and find a job. --Jayron32 17:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There were far more than "2-3 cities in England". See the list of cities in the United Kingdom for ones created during this era, or existing since "time immemorial". Of course, they were far smaller than cities today (St David's excepted), but much more important than their population might suggest. List of towns and cities in England by historical population gives an idea of historical populations. York wasn't even the second-largest city in England for much of the Medieval period. Warofdreams talk 16:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC)

1. Would be usually yes for peasants, but not so much for serfs. This could of course vary from barony to barony. Since barons had a lot of leeway in the amount of fees and taxes they could levy, they would recoup varying amounts.

2. I really don't know the answer to that, but I would guess that they would mostly be in the vicinity of the baron himself.

3. Serfs would probably have been forced to live on his land. Peasants had much more in the way of choice on where to live, and could have moved to the city if they wanted.

4. 1000 acres of fertile land would probably have been enough to support a village (two if they were not too big), but probably not an entire barony, even a poor one. Googlemeister (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

[ec] To answer your questions in order:

1. See Serfdom and Feudalism. Jayron is right to distinguish between lesser lords and barons, who were lords who typically (though not always) controlled several lesser lords. A lord's subjects could include both free yeomen and serfs. Yeomen were generally free to buy and sell the products of their labor as they pleased, though they owed an annual tribute or rent to their lord. Serfs, on the other hand, had to deliver a substantial percentage (20% or more) of their produce to their lords and generally also had to perform obligatory labor on the lord's own lands, from which the lord kept all income. Serfs spent most of their time working on the land and generally did not have time to produce goods for sale (during the medieval period). How the proceeds from any craft production were divided could vary from manor to manor, as could the terms of yeomen's and serf's obligations.

2. Barons did not necessarily have men at arms, particularly small landholders. They were themselves supposed to be militarily able, as were their sons and so on. The more powerful barons would have a cohort of knights and might be able to draft peasants for military service in an emergency.

3. City dwellers were typically exempt from obligations to local barons, except for the payment of taxes if the baron controlled the city. Peasants and other farm workers typically lived in villages set apart from cities.

4. One thousand acres is not a great deal of land, and hardly enough to support a powerful baron. This would be enough to support a minor lord rather modestly. You are right that 1000 acres is about 4 square kilometers. A typical estate would include both cropland and forest (for timber, fuel, and other uses), and 1000 acres could support a modest village of peasants and a minor lord's manor.

Marco polo (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that it is very difficult to make general claims about a period of time that spanned 1000 years over a very varied continent. But as a rule of thumb, 90% of the population had to work as farmers to feed medieval society. Even assuming everybody else ate 10 times better than the average peasant, that would leave nearly half the food amongst the farmers. I have a dim collection that overall taxation for serfs was about 40% (10% for the church, 30% for the feudal hierarchy), but don't remotely recall the specifics of time and place. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey tnx ! All of your answers I found extremely helpful, and your answers all came so quickly too - maybe because the middle ages is so interesting to many of us..? And you not only answer but you explain why and how, as well as giving me some useful links I sure will read. Thanks alot. I'm very grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krikkert7 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't caught this the first time, but in question 4, livestock was not a major part of the agricultural economy in England (it was a part of it, but not as significant as, say, grains) until the enclosure movement which all but ended the manorial system as a viable economic system. --Jayron32 20:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Manorial subjects had access to Common land for their livestock and often had other rights too. This[1] page which suggests that manorial tax (in England) was in the form of labour to the tune of 3 days a week. Tax to the church was called the Tithe and was indeed 10% of produce. Alansplodge (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to echo Stephan Schulz and remind everyone that over many centuries and in a place as big as Europe, there is no general answer. And one barony did not always work the same way as the neighbouring barony, even in a very small area in one specific time period. And what is a baron, anyway? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not exactly what you asked about, but I've been doing a bit of reading on the Swiss villages. The Swiss did have Barons, and other nobles, but evolved into a Federal Structure with some local nobles and a wide variation in local freedoms. They had vogts which translates to count. From the WP page on Vogt, "A Landvogt ruled a Landvogtei, either representing a sovereign canton, or acting on behalf of the Confederacy, or a subset thereof, administering a condominium (Gemeine Herrschaft) shared between several cantons. In the case of condominiums, the cantons took turns in appointing a Landvogt for a period of two years."

In exceptional cases, the population of the Landvogtei was allowed to elect their own Landvogt. This concerned Oberhasli in particular, which was nominally a subject territory of Bern, but enjoyed a special status as a military ally.

For the local administration, almost every village had a Bürgergemeinde that owned common land and some property in the village. The Bürgergemeinde chose who and how often they could use the common land and also may have had local power to fine residents for minor infractions. So, the Bürgergemeinde provided a local government, but only had authority over common property.

At the next level, many villages had a wide variety of local landlords. These were generally local nobles, churches, monasteries and even powerful merchants from the cities. It is not unusual to find that in a village with less than 100 people, the houses, farms and fields were owned by several different landlords. The landlord, just a today, was owed a certain rent at a certain time (I'm not sure how much). The village could sometimes buy itself out from under the landlord. In which case, the village became it's own landlord.

The village would also have a lord or city-state that had the low justice and maybe the high justice right. Low justice dealt with things that would be misdemeanors, and high justice dealt with major or capital crimes. The village could have 2 different courts with 2 different lords and 2 different sets of laws depending on the type of crime. For example, in Aargau, the Swiss drove the Austrians out in a war. But Austrian overlords retained the low justice rights, while Swiss Confederation bailiffs held the high justice right, even though they were often at war. Each court, of course, got to collect the fees that they levied against the convicted.

Each village was also part of a parish, and paid taxes to the parish. Sometimes the parish collected both church taxes and separate tithes. The local parish might also collect taxes, but have a higher church or monastery for which the collected tithes and then sent the tithes up the chain to the higher spiritual authority.

Each of these groups (landlord, court and parish) could all be located in different villages or towns. All of these conflicting lines of authority meant that you could get some really confusing lines of command. For example in the League of the Ten Jurisdictions, there was a town called Maienfeld that was both a ruling member of the new Canton (State) and also a minor village under the rule of the ruling members of the new Canton. It made decisions as a ruler that affected how it was ruled.Tobyc75 (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What distinguishes two identical objects?

Consider two identical, uniform spheres placed on a table in separate, identical holders. If I were to remove the spheres and switch their positions, so that holder "A" now contains sphere "B" and vice-versa, can it be said that the spheres have "moved" and that the sphere in holder "A" is a different sphere? Does it make any difference whether the replacement of the spheres occurs in the presence of an observer? --68.40.57.1 (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

An ill-posed question, flawed in so far as the notion that two balls could be made so as to be identical or indistinguishable is unlikely (if enough measuring equipment is thrown at the problem). Can it be said? Certainly, if we're told that it has happened and we believe the teller. Not with any reliability if we lack the instruments to detect the differences between the two spheres. If in the presence of an observer (if we may interrogate her and get honest replies), the difference is that we can say with certainty that the move happened or did not, even were we to lack the instruments. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, for elementary particles, this identity holds, at least in our current models. It does not make sense to speak of "this" and "that" electron, or even hydrogen atom (assuming both are ¹H). They are truly indistinguishable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

68.40.57.1 -- This question actually is very significant in quantum theory, where there's a difference between "bosons" and "fermions"; see article Identical particles. However, it's hard to see how this could meaningfully apply at the macro level with the degree of exactness that would be needed... AnonMoos (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The actual problem posed involves large objects comprising billions of atomic components. And it is stated that the two objects are identical. Bus stop (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And there's doubt as to whether that's at all realistically possible... AnonMoos (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is completely a question of perception. Ignoring the quantum problems of identifying identical bosons and stuff like that, there is the question of what it means to be "identical". Literally, for any macroscopic object, there cannot be two objects which are identical down to their atomic structure. There is always some means, given an arbitrarily precise ability to examine the details of two objects, to be able to distinguish between them. This is merely a question of, psychologically, how close do two objects need to be for a person to reasonably judge them to be identical, that is without special equipment, what sorts of differences are likely to go unnoticed or ignored by a typical person when judging "identicalness". --Jayron32 18:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Why can there not be two such objects? Granted, it's very improbable. But I don't see why it's impossible. Note that even a probability of exactly zero doesn't necessarily make an event impossible. --Trovatore (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Because you can't copy the original without changing it (the act of measuring changes the state of the measured item). The No-cloning theorem deals with states that contain superpositions, and the Uncertainty principle prevents complete measurements. Ariel. (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about copying? Jayron's claim was not that there was no reliable way to manufacture the objects; it was that they couldn't exist, which is another matter altogether. --Trovatore (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If no known process can create them, then they cannot exist. Ipso facto. --Jayron32 23:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's complete nonsense. --Trovatore (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't, but a switch has happened somewhere from the idea of accurately copying one object onto the other, and nature happening to make two perfectly identical objects without any copying process. 81.131.2.192 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Trovatore: Where would you get identical objects from? You claim they exist, but provide no means by which they can exist. --Jayron32 23:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Trovatore here: Just because humankind does not have the capacity to create a certain object, in no way means said object cannot exist. There are all manner of things that science has not yet explained and cannot replicate, but they sure as hell exist, which is why scientists scratch their heads about them in the first place. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That;s not the point. I am not asking for methods of human creation. I am asking for mechanisms of any sort. A state of being which cannot happen, cannot happen. It is not more complicated than that. If there is no means to have, in existence, two identical macroscopic objects, then there is no means to have them in existence. To say "They cannot exist, but they can exist" is a nonsensical tautology. I've never said that two identical objects could not be manufactured by humans. I have always maintained that the problem is that two identical objects cannot exist. --Jayron32 01:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You haven't said yet why you think they can't exist. Ariel introduced the idea that an exact copying process could be impossible, and Trovatore said "who said anything about copying?", and six posts later here we still are. Who said anything about copying? 213.122.43.105 (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

They cannot exist because there is no means by which to have two objects, each made of many gajillion atoms, exist in such a way that every single atom and subatomic particle within it is in the same set of conditions, and to maintain identical conditions for a non-trivial amount of time. Even if we could cause two such objects to wink into existance by, like, praying really hard for them, if they exist in different points in space, like say one in my right hand and another in my left, then they are exposed to different sets of conditions which will, pretty much instantly, make them unique from each other. There's no means to have identical objects which exist for any amount of measurable time. --Jayron32 01:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What if, just by chance, they come together in an identical way, and then, just by chance, their histories proceed identically? --Trovatore (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Jayron, you really need to be more precise with your statements. If no known process can create them, then they cannot exist. Ipso facto: if you didn't actually mean anything remotely like that - and it's now clear you didn't - then better not to have said that in the first place. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why anybody here is making pointless remarks about whether or not two identical spheres could actually be manufactured. That's entirely irrelevant to the question, which is namely: if two objects are indistinguishable except in one parameter (position, above), and that parameter is then exchanged between the two, have the objects been transformed? And does it matter if the exchange is continuous (observed, in the original example) or discrete? --68.40.57.1 (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If someone asked a question about the comparative biological properties of unicorns and mermaids, would skepticism about the premises of the question also be "pointless"...? AnonMoos (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

To me, this is not a question of physics (although it has a manifestation in physics) so much as it is a question of philosophy. And with such questions, it is frequently necessary to look beyond the immediately observable. See e.g. Theory of Forms. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

To the OP's second statement. Actually, someone already answered the question, but let me relink it. Describing what happens to your spheres depends on whether they are fermions or bosons, see Identical_particles#Fermions_and_bosons. Fermions obey the pauli exclusion principle while bosons do not. --Jayron32 19:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There is also that the two spheres are not identical in not being in the same place at the same time, and in general have different histories in spacetime. Depending on your purposes, this might not matter, in which case both configurations of the system look identical to me. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

One definition of "identical" is that two objects are identical if they share all of the same properties. In your example, you are talking about two objects that do not share ALL the same properties (i.e. location in space, relationship to the table, relationship to the holders, etcetera.) The observer is irrelevant in this view. Greg Bard (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand why they're doing that, it's because the question is difficult and they want it to go away. :) 81.131.2.192 (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is similar to the Ship of Theseus problem, and the issue of whether objects are qualificationally identical (two iPod Touch 16GB units for instance) and numerically identical (actually the same physical item). ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 23:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This reminded me of an amusing comic which I think touches on the different ways in which people will fail to see eye to eye on this problem. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue that comes up in a book I'm currently working on. The argument I make in the book is that for macroscopic objects, an identity is basically a label that people attach to a portion of the world. Our ability to attach these labels in a consistent way depends on certain types of continuity that hold up pretty well for many objects that we deal with, such as people and animals. When continuity breaks down, though, our ability to assign identities breaks down along with it. Looie496 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this has gone a bit far afield from the OP's question, though not in an uneducational way. But identical spheres can certainly exist in the realm of mathematics, so maybe keep the discussion there rather than in the physical world. The OP stated that he was going to take these objects and switch them. So the OP knows that they've been switched, hence there will always be at least one "observer" to this hypothetical switching. And if there are other eyewitnesses, or better yet, video recordings, then it could be demonstrated that they've been switched. However, if the two objects were truly identical, as mathematical spheres with identical radii and no form of labeling would be, then there would be no obvious way, beyond witness and video testimony, to "prove" that they had been switched. One of Steven Wright's jokes is coming to mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has extensive articles on [the problem of identity] - whether two things are the same or not. Links to related entries can be found at the very end of the article. From a quick perusal, it is clear that philosophers have no clear answer to the question (do they ever?). Whether the two spheres are identical depends on which identity predicate you are using. However, there are many identity predicates that do distinguish them, and in particular they can be distinguished by their different histories. 84.239.160.59 (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not entirely related, but there is a theory going around in Physics recently that at the end of the universe, when everything has run down, all matter broken apart and all enegy reduced to a widely spread background, there will be no way to measure either size or time, nothing to consider either relative too any more, and so the infinately large universe an infinite time into the future will simultaneously be infinitely small and will have existed both forever and only an instant. 85.210.119.178 (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of the bundle theory and the identity of indiscernibles in philosophy, whereby an object consists of a set of properties, which raises a question about what happens when two objects have the same properties as each other. This is also connected to Aristotle's Categories, which can be said to list the ten possible types of properties which an object can have. In this case, their relative positions may provide a distinction, as they contain different position properties (possibly Aristotle's place, time and state categories). However, the philosopher Max Black offered a different version of your thought experiment which I always enjoyed. He proposes a universe in which the only two objects are two identical iron spheres exactly one mile apart. In such a universe even their properties of location would be identical, as each sphere would have exactly the same relationship to the other. Thus if bundle theory held, the two spheres would be the same sphere, as they would have the same bundle of properties. An alternative theory to the bundle theory of identity is substance theory, but as David Hume argued, substance theory proposes the existence of a property which cannot be perceived, and thus seems to fall afoul of Occam's razor. (Mind you, I have never seen Occam's razor as a knock-down argument, so much as a reason for feeling uncomfortable). - Bilby (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't quite work to put them on a table, but the original thought experiment came from Max Black, in his article "The Identity of Indiscernibles", and which I believe you can read about at Identity_of_indiscernibles#Critique. The thought experiment is meant to reply to Leibniz law, which states that if two objects have all the same properties, then they are identical. Black suggested that we consider a universe that contains only two objects -- perfectly round iron spheres, one mile across, and 3 miles apart at their center. It seems that they have all properties in common (one mile across, iron, three miles from only other object, etc). Further, though you wish to claim that there is some spacial difference, such that one is 'over there' and one is 'over here', such a reply assumes the existence of a third thing, namely an observer.

Setting aside the difficulty in manufacturing two spheres like this, or where we find a universe void of anything else, it as least seems metaphysically possible (no contradictions). Therefore, the original question is, are there any properties that these spheres have that are not in common? And if not, does that undermine Leibniz law? (There's also a citation of Ian Hacking's reply on that article. Llamabr (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Angels

Once, James Madison said:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither internal nor external checks or controls on government would be necessary.

What did he mean by that statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.63.234 (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You need more of the quote to start making sense of it. It goes on:

In framing a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

I think the meaning then becomes evident ... internal and external checks are unnecessary since the angels govern (and presumably are omniscient and hence hard to fool and impossible to evade). --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think he's more refering to angels, as agents of God, are incapable of wrongdoing. Thus, according to Madison, if man were incapable of wrongdoing, government would be unnecessary. If angels governed, we could trust them to govern perfectly. However, since men, who are known to commit wrongdoing, are both the governed and the governing, both need to be watched. Its an elaborate statement on Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? --Jayron32 23:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Angels incapable of wrongdoing? What about Lucifer? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Judaism there is no such being. Angels have no free will, and can only do what God says. There is Satan, but he is more like a prosecutor - he's not evil, he's just doing the job God assigned him. Ariel. (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Lucifer story is extrabiblical for Christians too. --Jayron32 23:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Judaism there is no such being— I am missing the relevance of this comment, since I am reasonably sure that Madison was not Jewish. Marnanel (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bible mentions disobedient angels. (http://www.multilingualbible.com/genesis/6-4.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/jude/1-6.htm)

—Wavelength (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

All maybe true. But the literal truth of disobedient angels is irrelevent to the discussion. When one says "He's an angel", what does one mean about the subject's behavior? --Jayron32 23:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can reject Newtonian physics so completely on the science desk (so as to say that the question about the possibility is meaningless, when we have articles on the subject) and then entertain hypotheticals about beings for which there is no evidence beyond mythology here to such an extent that you are willing to generalize over the details of the mythology in question. I'm not complaining, because your answers on both desks are tremendously helpful. But from my point of view you can prove anything with a contradiction, so anything is consistent once a contradiction is accepted. However, I would just like to point out that the government theorists who tried to found their principles on fewer contradictions may have been substantially more consistent. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Its a completely different sort of question. One is asking about Madison's quote and its context. Given that Madison has left a COPIOUS record regarding his opinions and attitudes vis-a-vis the formation of the U.S. state (see Federalist Papers for one), one needn't run through an exhaustive theological discussion over the nature of angels in various religions to understand what Madison meant. What Madison meant is that people are imperfect beings, and so are their governments, which is why there is needed a series of checks and balances upon the government. Whether or not Angels are perfect, or whether Lucifer was an angel, is completely irrelevent to understanding Madison's quote above. The Newtonian universe question on the science desk is like asking "What if the sun really revolves around the Earth". Making that assumption requires us to ignore a whole shitload of observations we know to be verifiable. It's as good as saying "It's all magic". Completely different sorts of questions --Jayron32 03:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is one viewpoint which is relevant to the question.

Who Really Rules the World? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site

—Wavelength (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What? That's hardly relevant. You and schyler need to stop sticking this junk on the reference desk. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It seemed sort of relevant, especially given the direction things took above it: the argument seems to be that this world is ruled by a disgruntled Angel = the Devil (along with a host of like-minded angels/devils), and gives Biblical references to support that notion. Madison, it appears, was therefore sloppy in his choice of words – we are ruled by "angels", but they're of the kind that require checks-and-balances! ;) BTW, I thought that JW material was much better written and coherent than what I have previously been handed on the street, which is good, it was interesting, but I agree it shouldn't be handed out here unless it is at least as relevant as it was in this case.) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether Madison literally believed in the existence of angels and/or whether angels literally exist, is not really the point. He was metaphorically saying that if people were perfect beings, government would not be needed. They aren't, so it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I point out that Madison's arguments don't actually prove that people have to be perfect beings to do without government? They prove (if you accept his premisses) that if men were angels they could do without, but don't actually demonstrate that being angels is necessary, merely that it might make it easier... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't read it that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Madison proves (if you accept his arguments) that (a) angels can do without government, and (b) if men have government, they need checks and balances. He doesn't actually prove that men need government, he merely takes it as self-evident. Or if he doesn't, where does he show this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Since men are not angels, government is necessary. Seems pretty clear to me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

With respect, you need to review our article on denying the antecedent. Compare "If I were a dog, I would like aniseed. Since I am not a dog, I don't like aniseed." In fact, I do like aniseed, but that's all right, because the argument is a fallacy. Marnanel (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The preceding sentences are no less relevant to understanding:

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels ....

Madison takes it as given that the state is necessary; else he (and the intended reader) wouldn't bother debating how to design it. That necessity is the minor premise of the syllogism, not the conclusion. The conclusion is "men, even governors, are not angels" (and a constitution must take that into account). Madison probably knew what's wrong with denying the antecedent even if Bugs doesn't.

The rhetorical question can also be read as saying that the state is a product, rather than a remedy, of men's sinful nature. Anyone who wants to debate that possibility with me is welcome to post a comment on my blog; it would be inappropriate here. —Tamfang (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is there evidence that perfect beings do not need to be governed?

—Wavelength (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You have to take Madison's statement in the context of the hot political theory of his day, that of the social contract, especially as envisioned by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Madison, and his collegues, saw the role of government in shaping the sort of society which was living under it. Witness his contemporary Thomas Jefferson's view of man's perfect state being the agrarian society, and his desire to establish a state to foster it. The two-sided recognition that a) the source of America's problems was the poor governance of Britain and thus b) The source of America's glory would be good governance was a driving factor in establishing the right government during the founding years of the Republic. His statement is meant to be allegorical or aphoristic. Again, it's not whether or not real perfect beings could exist, or whether they really would not need to be governed. The statement would have been understood under the context of the time to mean exactly that. Whether such statements hold up to modern thinking, or scrupulous logic, or anything else is still irrelevent. His audience would have been familiar with social contact thinking, would have understood and accepted the arguement on the role of government as a valid arguement in that millieu, and it was effective for that reason. You cannot subject the statement to such a level of overanalysis and expect it to be understood the way it should be understood. This isn't about arguing with Madison; that's not really what the OPs question was about. This is about explaining what Madison meant, not testing the veracity of his statements, merely explaining them. --Jayron32 19:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the line of thought is like this: If people were perfect, we wouldn't need taxation. Everyone would contribute enough in charity to pay for schools, healthcare, and the like. We wouldn't need a military or police because people would never engage in war or criminal activity. We wouldn't need laws, because everyone would always do the right thing without needing a fear of punishment to do so. We wouldn't need courts, because everyone would respect each other's person and property. And so on. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think we have established that if by "angels" Madison meant the good kind, they would govern us well without requiring any restriction by us on their actions in doing so. But since we are not angels-of-the-good-kind and must govern ourselves, it's a good idea for We, the People to have some accountability of ourselves to ourselves built into the framework of our self-government. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The slipperiest part is the "do the right thing" statement. You would first have to get universal agreement on what "the right thing" is in a given circumstance. The catch is that there is no such universal agreement. That's why laws are needed, to define what the consensus of the citizenry presumably is for "the right thing". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That's mistaken, but off-topic. —Tamfang (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not mistaken, and it is on-topic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Bugs is saying something like that you have to have a band if you're going to have a dance, and if so I agree. What is required, or not, for angels to dance remains a mystery, but that's okay, because it is not relevant to the question of how to set up a framework for self-governance that works. What we need as a self-governing society is a government that plays the music that we like to dance to best. That way we can all have as much of a good time as possible without stepping on each other's feet and stumbling into each other all the time. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Bugs: The topic is what did Madison mean by that?, which has a reasonable chance of being resolved here, not is coercive government necessary?, which won't be as I will now proceed to prove. But to the narrow point: Disagreement on "the right thing" is a better reason for trying multiple solutions in parallel than for compelling everyone to follow the same one.

WikiDao: More feet are stepped on in the name of choosing the music than in all other human activities combined. —Tamfang (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Define "coercive". Or do you mean simply "compelled to obey the law"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Define "law". Or do you mean simply "that which the biggest bully will compel you to obey"? —Tamfang (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

We may assume that we would all like as much Liberty for ourselves as is consistent with not unduly restricting the Liberty of others (I think someone said that; can't find the source right now.) We want of government that it implement that as well as possible, and given that we're all human we'd better write some checks-and-balances into the framework of that government. Everyone must dance, or else must leave (unless you are the entire South, in which case you must dance). Alternatively, if you don't like the music, you can arrange a private room in which to rest. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)